Amnesty via Executive Order? [Reader Post]

Loading

Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU[/youtube]

There’s no doubt in my mind what he meant. The United States of America is fundamentally a democratic republic. America’s greatness lies in its promise for equal opportunity, not the promise of equal outcome. Those are the things Obama intends to change.

He has plans afoot to overturn Supreme Court rulings. He has involved the US into a war without the permission of Congress, something that as Senator Obama said was un-Constitutional. Given his disregard for the Constitution and overall disdain for the country, Barack Obama appears to be poised to grant amnesty to illegal aliens via Executive Order.

Barack Obama has ordered border patrol agents to stop apprehending illegals crossing the border.

An Arizona sheriff says he has been flooded with calls and emails of support from local and federal agents who back his claims that the U.S. Border Patrol has effectively ordered them to stop apprehending illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

“Upper management has advised supervisors to have agents ‘turn back South’ (TBS) the illegal aliens (aka bodies) they detect attempting to unlawfully enter the country … at times you even hear supervisors order the agents over the radio to ‘TBS’ the aliens instead of catching them,” one San Diego border agent wrote in an email to Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever.

“This only causes more problems as the aliens, as you know, don’t just go back to Mexico and give up. They keep trying, sometimes without 10 minutes in-between attempts, to cross illegally,” continued the email, which was among a number of communications to Dever reviewed by FoxNews.com. “This makes the job for agents more dangerous. Not only are the aliens more defiant, they also begin to feel like they can get away with breaking our federal laws.”

The email is one of more than 100 messages Dever said he received from active and retired Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers from across the country. Many wrote of what they said was their own experience and first-hand knowledge of Border Patrol’s efforts to reduce apprehension numbers by making fewer arrests.

Obama will send assault weapons to Mexico but won’t send illegals to Mexico.

Obama held an immigration heads-up meeting with a host of liberal luminaries such as Richard Trumka, Eric Holder, Hilda Solis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But no border state Governors.

Obama told attendees that his amnesty immigration reform plan had little chance of passing Congress.

Sharpton acknowledged that Obama was “very candid” about immigration reform’s bleak hopes for passage.

That might pose a problem for a President, but not for a king.

Today Obama smudged the line between legal and illegal immigrants.

“No matter who you are. No matter where you can came from. No matter what you look like. No matter whether your ancestors landed here on Ellis Island or came here on slave ships or came across the Rio Grande, we are all connected. We will rise and fall together. That’s the vision of America I’ve got, that’s the idea of the heart of America,” President Obama said at a fundraiser in San Francisco.

“That’s the idea of the heart of our campaign,” Obama added.

As the Presidency morphs into a monarchy, look for Obama to grant amnesty to illegal aliens via Executive Order.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Federal Republic. Calling the USA a “Democratic Republic” buys into the mantra that the leftists want spread around to help undermine the Constitution.

From a 04/24/11 Mercury Times article. I added the bold text:

“The Obama administration deported a record-high 392,862 illegal immigrants in the 2010 fiscal year, and another 387,790, the previous record, in 2009.

The administration has prioritized arresting and deporting people who have criminal records, using a program called Secure Communities that finds undocumented immigrants once they are fingerprinted at local jails. All of California’s counties are now part of the database. Advocates point out that tens of thousands of people without criminal records are also caught in the net.”

While some apparently aren’t satisfied with Obama’s approach, the fact of the matter is that the administration has removed a higher total of illegal aliens from inside U.S. borders than any previous administration, while concentrating specifically on the criminal element that poses the greatest threat to the public.

Greg: While some apparently aren’t satisfied with Obama’s approach, the fact of the matter is that the administration has removed a higher total of illegal aliens from inside U.S. borders than any previous administration, while concentrating specifically on the criminal element that poses the greatest threat to the public.

Wow… talk about embellishment. How about what the liberal fact checker, Politifact, from the St. Pete Times has to say about this “record”… which rates the talking point as “mostly true” with caveats. i.e. embellishment, number play via “fiscal year” dates, and without regard to what policies have been the reason for the deportation.

A DHS spokesman provided us with the deportation statistics updated through June 7, 2010, though not all the numbers have been officially released yet. In fiscal year 2008 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008), there were 369,221 deportations. During fiiscal year 2009 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009) there were 387,790 deportations.

That’s an increase of 18,569 from one year to the next, a jump of about 5 percent. So, using these numbers, Ramos is correct.

It’s worth mentioning a few caveats however.

• The fiscal years do not square precisely with presidential years. Fiscal year 2008 was entirely under Bush, while fiscal year 2009 consisted of four months under Bush and eight under Obama. So using the raw fiscal-year figures doesn’t quite prove the Bush-Obama comparison.

• It’s not clear that Obama policies deserve credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for any increase in deportations, as Ramos implies. Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesman for the Migration Policy Institute, said that “deportation numbers have been on a steadily upward trajectory” since 2002, due to a number of policy changes initially undertaken during the Bush administration. Indeed, between 2002 and 2008, deportations rose by 117 percent.

DHS also provided totals for part of fiscal year 2010 — the portion from Oct. 1, 2009, through June 7, 2010. That number was 227,163. If you prorate that amount to a full 12 months, you get a full-year total of 330,419 — which is less than each of the two previous years. However, immigration experts said that deportations are not spaced equally throughout the year, meaning that prorating is not necessarily valid.

oh my… upward projectory due mostly to changes done under the Bush administration. How does that taste in your lib/prog pipe, Greg?

I’d say that’s game, set match… unless you can figure out how Obama can take credit for Bush’s policies INRE immigration enforcement. But I’ll give you this… at least he’s not refusing to enforce the Bush regulations. That’s certainly an avenue he’s never hesitant to travel, since he has little regard for the law when it comes to him as POTUS. i.e. the latest 2011 budget law and his signing order, refusing to acknowledge/enforce/honor what he objects to. This is Obama’s idea of “line item veto”, I guess.

Big deal. The Dem’s need to get them the vote.

Like a spoiled child, the man is desperate. By acting as if the job isn’t to his satisfaction he pouts around leaving hints that he is disappointed in the perks and lack of privacy. In reality, he is looking for a movement to beg him to stay the course and stick it out for another term; unfortunately, for Obama, the majority of Americans are fed up with his petulance and lack of performance, ability, and work ethic. They hope he decides not to run. What can the spoiled child do to reassure election? Bring in the bulk of Mexico and give them citizenship so that they can vote next year. Thirty or Forty million might be able to swing the vote if he can give them citizenship and the right to vote in the same afternoon by Executive Order. He admires the power of China’s president so why not assume those powers by EO. You think he isn’t capable, with the money of George Soros, anything is possible. Even paying off those who would impeach The Man Who Would Be King, a great book by Rudyard, but a lousy script for the US.

@MataHarley, #4:

It’s not clear that Obama policies deserve credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for any increase in deportations, as Ramos implies. Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesman for the Migration Policy Institute, said that “deportation numbers have been on a steadily upward trajectory” since 2002, due to a number of policy changes initially undertaken during the Bush administration. Indeed, between 2002 and 2008, deportations rose by 117 percent.

What immigration policy changes undertaken by the Bush administration would those be? I seem to recall a huge increase in illegal immigration during the Bush years. An estimated 3 million more crossed our southern border during 2004. Nothing was done by the White House to effectively curtail this.

After the Border Patrol was folded into the new Department of Homeland Security the Bush administration actively resisted hiring the new Border Patrol agents, even though the new hiring was mandated by law. A total of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents were to be hired at a rate of 2,000 per year beginning with 2005. The Bush administration responded by providing funding for only 210. Remember that?

It’s surprising to hear conservatives defending the Bush administration’s record on illegal immigration. Many were very critical of his inaction while he was in office. I always thought the administration was engaging in a hypocritical political balancing act. They talked one way and went through some motions to satisfy growing populace anger about illegal immigration, but didn’t actually do anything effective because too much money was being made from dirt-cheap undocumented labor.

Are you saying that if you, as a citizen, don’t know the INS and border enforcement regs, it doesn’t exist? What’s your point, Greg? Are you now questioning the Migration Policy Institute because they may know more than your talking head pundits and their sound bytes?

My suggestion is you come up with something more than saying “what regulations?” to the debunking of your hero worship. Your sidling of the issue will not work with me. Do your own homework if you want to know what reg changes, of which you are unaware and which the MPI is, transpired specifically.

The bottom line… you have been corrected by one of your own liberal watchdogs… Politifact

As far as Bush and immigration, I was not one of those laying my largest criticism in those arenas. Nor on his foreign policy. As I said on Skookum’s thread, I was a minority conservative for being supportive of Bush’s Guest Workers program. I support strict and serious border patrol for new illegals, and then dealing with those that are here with various paths to citizenship… or back home… depending on who they are and what they’ve done since here. Criminals? … automatic out. No ifs, ands or buts. You certainly can’t deport those that have been seriously entrenched, and contributing to this nation, for years. I will also note this personal observation… of the immigrants (illegal or not) that I know, many have a more admirable work ethic than whiny Americans I know.

My suggestion is if you want more in depth debate on this, go to Skookum’s thread on the guest worker program.

Greg: They talked one way and went through some motions to satisfy growing populace anger about illegal immigration, but didn’t actually do anything effective because too much money was being made from dirt-cheap undocumented labor.

Wishful thinking. You have already been proven wrong on your personal bias by raw statistics, and by those in think tanks far more knowledgeable than you. Nice try…. oh O’devotee.

Haven’t heard it mentioned, but agents are being required to document “zero got aways” on their reports. That means numbers will show no illegals are entering the US. In the past, if an agent spotted 20 illegals and only apprehended 4, his or her report would record 16 “got aways”. Now, they are being told to enter “zero got aways”. Rational? If you did not speak to the escapees, you cannot verify they are actually illegals, and thus you cannot report illegals who escaped into the United States. Zero got away. Manipulate the numbers and Napolitano can continue to falsely states the border is secure, time to pass immigration reform and amnesty.

I’m sorry but, I can no longer stand the man or his ‘How much can we hurt America and Americans’ Policies… I cannot stand the man… He had done absolutely nothing good for this Nation…

I wonder if he knows he is toast in 2012 and this is just a middle finger punch to Americans and other Legal citizens….because the melting pot ‘he’ perceives is not what a ‘majority’ of the Americans living in reality, perceive.

drj, your headline is again misleading hyperbole. Exactly how is turning aliens back to Mexico, before entry, “amnesty”?

@Greg: . SINCE 9-11 48,000 AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE ILLEGAL ALIENS CROSSING OUR SOUTHERN BORDERS, that is more than the total of military soldiers in harms way since we went into irac after hussien to current ..those are civilians not signed up for hazzard duty in the same time frame on our own soil . give that to your government officers .

Ever since the 1st President there have been group pardons.
With G. Washington it was the group of men involved in the Whiskey Rebellion….without naming individuals.
But over a century later J. Carter pardoned all deserters in the Vietnam era…..also without naming individuals.
Now, it does look like Obama will pardon or grant amnesty to illegal aliens…..to get their votes and the votes of their families.
Mush as I didn’t like the earlier versions of applying to a group a Constitutional principal meant for an individual I recognize this is nothing new.
It is unfortunate that Obama could use it just for gaining supporters.
I guess Obama realizes he has thrown too many of his last election’s supporters under the bus and needed a new crop.
What a burden this will be on our already overburdened city, county, state and federal governments.
Obviously Obama doesn’t care about those things.

@DrJohn, I read the entire thing. Still don’t get your implication with amnesty, nor an executive order that doesn’t exist.

Here’s the trip on “not arresting” and merely turning them back. It’s called not wasting cash. Illegal entry to the US is a misdemeanor unless it’s done and successfully prosecuted multiple times. So what’s the expensive process and the results? They round up those “arrested”, run them thru expensive court and detention costs, then ship ’em back home… again on the taxpayers’ dime. If they are caught a couple more times, they may get higher fees in penalties, but doesn’t necessarily stop them from attempting to re’enter, and hope not to get caught.

This is pretty much like arresting those that drive without licenses or insurance, then releasing them when they get their bond.

And no… I’m not equating the morality of insurance and drivers licenses with crossing borders illegally. But I am equating a relatively similar court view of the offense as a misdemeanor.

My point is why go thru the expense at all? Why not just force them back? Prosecuting them won’t stop them, and all we’ve done is pile on the taxpayer’s expense to an already unmanagable system. So I do support chasing them back home, and not filling up on the holding cells and using court time. You betcha.

The only thing that will stop them is if they increase the level of criminal penalty for entering illegally, and increase the punishment for doing so. i.e. the AZ immigration law certainly made a dent in the weeks after it was passed.

There’s something else I’d support. A joint special ops between Mexican and American officials to clean out the cartels. In fact, that’s a “war” I’d prefer over this Libya nonsense.

I think my point is there’s little effective relief for the “catch and release” we do for immigration now. We rack up a lot of bills for prosecution and deportation, but it doesn’t have an effect because the problem is less the prosecution/deportation, but the minimal penalty that doesn’t warrant the costs of enforcement when weighed with results. If they made the penalties more harsh, and the reception less welcoming, there might be less attempting to cross the border. Then combine that with aggressive special ops joint raids on the cartels and low lifes that always escape the border net. The truly bad guys are the ones most likely not to be caught, because they have money and a more sophisticated entry system.

However refusing to “arrest” those crossing is not amnesty. While the lines have been blurred often between “pardons” and “amnesty”, both lie within the power of the Executive branch to do so… i.e. Lincoln to Union deserting soldiers, and Carter to ‘Nam deserters. Others, like Reagan, had it done by legislation in 1986.

But “amnesty” is not equated with chasing them back south instead of running them thru the system before sending them back.

This brings us to your, I guess, fear… that Obama will grant a “pardon” to immigrants here in the US. While that is fully within his Constitutional powers, that’s not been done, or even suggested. Nor does it have anything to do with forcing immigrants back at the border instead of arresting them.

So your title really doesn’t mean much, except to imply that a POTUS in campaign mode is somehow going to be so stupid as to sign an EO for amnesty for illegal aliens present here… none of which he has done, nor has given indication he’s thinking of it. Why on earth would you think he’d rock the boat with such a contentious issue at this stage of the game?

Greg, chew on this a while and see if it doesn’t leave a foul taste in your mouth as you defend the Obama administration and Janet Napolitano’s ineptness when it comes to illegal immigration:

“4-19-11 Update: Fox News has updated this story.

[Link to FNC’s story on Sheriff Dever]

We have David Aguilar on tape, yelling at agents “You are NOT immigration officers.” and explaining that our main job is not to arrest illegal aliens. He goes on to say that we should never “lower” ourselves to the status of immigration officer. If he denies it, we will bring out the audio tapes of his rants.”

That, Greg, from Local 2544 of the United States Border Patrol. So the very agents who are the boots on the ground are saying that they have been instructed by David Aguilar, top BP agent who answers only to Janet Napolitano, to NOT arrest illegal aliens and that the arrest of illegal aliens is NOT their main job.

Perhaps you would like to explain to the rest of us, exactly what David Aguilar, and Janet Napolitano, thinks is the main job of our Border Patrol agents? Is it simply to repel those crossing the Rio Grande or walking across the desert in their chase of El Norte?

How many Catholic nuns, Houston police officers, Border Patrol agents, ranchers and other ordinary American citizens have to die so that the Democrats, and socialist groups like LaRaza and LULAC, can pander to illegals who have no right to be in our nation? How many? Give me a number where the crime committed by illegals becomes no longer acceptable in the left’s goal of making voters out of these people?

How many Border Patrol agents will wind up in prison for doing their jobs? How many illegal alien drug runners will our U.S. Attorneys grant immunity to in order to get them to testify against a Border Patrol agent on the orders of the Mexican government? Since when are criminals given immunity to testify against a 7 year veteran of the Border Patrol who simply “pulled” on an illegal drug runners cuffs and is now facing 35 years in prison for that, oh, and partially due to the testimony of other illegal aliens?

What we now have is a DoJ that applies more rights to illegals than to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. I suggest you read the Mexican constitution and the part that deals with not just illegal immigrants there, but the rights that are denied to legal immigrants and naturalized Mexican citizens.

And don’t think that Obama will not do whatever he can to legalize potential voters. He will. Just as he has now, by EO, put every company that holds a government contract in a position of having to be politically correct in their political donations, i.e. for him and the Democrats.

@retire05: Just as he has now, by EO, put every company that holds a government contract in a position of having to be politically correct in their political donations, i.e. for him and the Democrats.

Did you ever consider the possibility that, what you suggest is the reasoning, would backfire, retire05? Granted, I find the whole thing inordinately bizarre since political donations are an open book via many sites already (example OpenSecrets and the FEC site, to name just two). Why is a disclosure form necessary?

But on the flip side, since those donations *are* an open book, this is also the fastest route possible – since journalists are unbelievably lazy these days – to suss out curried favors. In other words, if a contract is awarded to a huge Obama donor, it hits the news faster. And this doesn’t play in their favor for appearances.

It’s a two edged sword here, retire05. I don’t see that this ridiculous mandated donation disclosure isn’t as much a bite in the butt as it is redundant in already available information. But it will save the public from lazy journalists, because it will be part of bid contract documents.

Mata, you’re basically wrong about illegal entry into the United States being a “misdemeanor”. It is much more than that.

Under Title 18, Section 1325, a person who enters the U.S. illegally can be fined, and imprisoned for up to six months, or both. This hardly equates with driving without a license, since in most cases, driving without a license doesn’t hold a six month prison sentence.
Also, if a person who has already been deported for entering the U.S. illegal, and they reenter, they can be emprisoned for up to two years; if they have been convicted of a previous felony, the prison time increases to “up to” ten years.

So while Title 18 doesn’t specify the crime as a misdemeanor or a felony, the violation of illegal entry carries a much heavier penalty than does your “driving without a license of insurance” example and is, in fact, a federal offense.

As I said, retire05, I wasn’t equating the morality of insurance/licenses with illegal entry. I was using it as an example of cost vs effect and results. But I’m sorry to point you that you are incorrect in considering it anything more. The difference between felonies and misdemeanors is generally marked by time and amount of imprisonment. For the first time offenders, their punishment doesn’t rise to felony status with sentences of less than a year. And of course different misdemeanors carry different sentences. And these also vary from state to state. The question is, is it below the amount of time, or what jails, to keep it below felony status. With the felony status comes other more serious repercussions… i.e. loss of gun rights, prohibited from getting certain licenses (hunting/fishing), and in some states the loss of the right to vote.

And as I said in the explanation above, if they have multiple instances (or even records of crimes committed while within the states), it is only then it becomes of felony status.

Title 18 doesn’t specify ID’ing because it depends upon the individual and their records. So yes… they are misdemeanors for those who do not have multiple attempts or records when arrested.

Another FYI for those wrongly claiming illegal immigration is down due to obama.
One big reason why it’s dropped is the economy. Without jobs, there is no point in coming here. Also, there has been increased enforcement at the state level that caused some to self deport and stopped others from crossing. So before giving obama all the credit, let’s consider reality, shall we?

Mata, not all political donations are recorded. Someone who contributes less than $200.00, no matter how many times they donate to a poltical entity, is not recorded. Only those donations exceeding $200.00 at one time. This is how Obama managed to not provide the FEC with the names of all those who donated to his campaign. I myself have donated to many campaigns and political organizations, but always in the amount of $199.00. You will not find my name on opensecrets.org anywhere.

What this EO will require all companies who hold government contracts to do is report the political donations of everyone of their employees, along with the owner or CEO of that company. So if I work for XYZ Paper Towel Company, and they supply paper towels to the Smithonian Institution, the company is now required to report that I have donated $199.00 to the re-election campaign of some senator.

Now, perhaps you would like to explain to me how it is the business of the federal government if I give $199. to a re-election campaign just because I work for some company that holds a government contract, no matter how small?

The EO allows the Obama administration, while giving out federal contracts, to delve into the private affairs of even the employees. If you think that will not be used in distributing contracts, in favor of Obama supporters, you are smoking something that is illegal in my state.

Now, perhaps you would like to explain to me how it is the business of the federal government if I give $199. to a re-election campaign just because I work for some company that holds a government contract, no matter how small?

The EO allows the Obama administration, while giving out federal contracts, to delve into the private affairs of even the employees. If you think that will not be used in distributing contracts, in favor of Obama supporters, you are smoking something that is illegal in my state.

Granted I’ve been a bit busy, but I’ve read the draft of the EO, that has not been issued to date that I know of.. and I’m still confused as to where you believe that you, an employee on payroll, thinks your donations are going to be required. It is for the bidding contractor (boss, CEO), the officers and the directors of that contractor… and affiliate businesses The mention of affiliates and subsidaries is where I think you may believe you could be swept into the net, right? That’s not defined yet…. so you may well be if you are a one man band subcontractor with your own company.

I don’t like it either, but not for the reasons you are leaping to. I tend to agree with this analysis at Gov Exec dot com. That it interjects politics into what is supposed to be an a’political procedure, that it inhibits small businesses, and *mostly* because it exempts unions from the same requirement. The last would be the perfect example of how this mandated disclosure would actually backfire, because it would highlight the vast sums of money that flow between unions and Democrat elected ones.

MATA says #10 Dr.John “again using misleading hyperbole”.No,our Dr John?

Mata, you can stick to your reasoning, but you are still wrong. Law breakers are not sentenced to six months in prison in a federal facility for a misdemeanor. What you are trying to do is read into the law what is not there; a defination of misdemeanor vs. felony. Also, I never said anything about “morality”, now did I?

Multiple instances? No, one previous instance of deportation can result in a two year prison sentence, no “multiple”.

Can you name any other “misdemeanor” violation that will result in a six month prison sentence?

retire05, you are still missing the point.

It is whether the illegal alien has other records that would make his arrest and prosecution rise to a felony status. You can attempt to attach emotions and moral judgement all you want until the cows come home. But a first, or even a possible 2nd time entry is not going to rise to felony punishment because of the length of imprisonment… unless they have prior convictions that warrants a higher sentence.

You continue to want to make the case that if this misdemeanor isn’t the same sentence as another misdemeanor, than the other must rise to felony. Don’t work that way, guy. Every misdemeanor does not the same penalty. Someone convicted of marijuana possession make get 2 years for the amount possessed, while another may get eight months. The former is a felony, the latter is a misdemeanor. Or it could be that the latter is on his third time with possession… in which case he could get more prison time that makes it a felony. And, of course, all can be influenced by state laws as well.

Just because immigraton is a federal issue, and not state, doesn’t make it automatic felonies. Nor does it have to “match” any other misdemeanor to be a misdemeanor. Apparently I put you off track when I tried to note that spending a lot of the taxpayers money to prosecute and sentence those that drive without licenses or insurance is a waste of cash.

Oh yes… surf to most any attorney or legal site, and they will all pretty much say the same…. the difference between the two lies with the penalty and prison sentence. And most of them note that dividing line is a year.

Mata, why are you trying to present a strawman with your accusations of my “attaching emotion or moral judgement?” I never used a “emotional or moral judgement” to the law.

Is it possible for you to stick to the law as written, or are you just so bone headed that when proven wrong, you would rather fall on your sword? As to your marijuana reference, in many state laws, quantity of possession determines if it is a misdemeanor or felony. That determination (amount of possession determines severity of crime) is what determins the sentence. The sentence will increase, as in immigration law, with the frequency of violation.

What part of Title 18, Section 1325 states that the first offense of entering the U.S. illegally is a misdemeanor? Please, quote the law. Also, it is lame to tell me to surf to legal sites: state the law as written. It doesn’t take a law firm to do that for you. Show me where the first illegal entry is, as per the written law, a misdemeanor.

retire05: Is it possible for you to stick to the law as written, or are you just so bone headed that when proven wrong, you would rather fall on your sword?

I am sticking to the law, as written. We’ve been thru this in past immigration threads last year. The problem is that the law, as written, with penalties for first and possibly even second time offenders (depending upon if they were convicted, of course, or the charges were not reduced to something else), does not rise to the status of a more serious felony, which would affect other rights they could lose in this country, retire05. Now perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say, so let me repeat what you *did* say:

Under Title 18, Section 1325, a person who enters the U.S. illegally can be fined, and imprisoned for up to six months, or both. This hardly equates with driving without a license, since in most cases, driving without a license doesn’t hold a six month prison sentence.

Also, if a person who has already been deported for entering the U.S. illegal, and they reenter, they can be emprisoned for up to two years; if they have been convicted of a previous felony, the prison time increases to “up to” ten years.

So while Title 18 doesn’t specify the crime as a misdemeanor or a felony, the violation of illegal entry carries a much heavier penalty than does your “driving without a license of insurance” example and is, in fact, a federal offense.

1st Paragraph: You try to associate the length of time for misdemeanors… license… with illegal entry. That’s not the point. The point is, both are misdemeanors.

2nd Paragraph: What the heck do you think I’ve been saying? If they have multiple instances, and if their imprisonment rises to a certain level, only then will it be considered a felony. However even if it’s the second entry, and no other crimes of record, they do not necessarily get over a year of prison time. Getting “up to” two years doesn’t mean they always get the maximum sentences. So I’m missing your point. What will be noted is that if the judge decides to consider it felonious, they lose potential voting rights (in some states) and other loss of rights in the US for that judgment.

3rd Paragraph: Federal, state or local jurisdiction has nothing to do with misdemeanor vs felony status. It only describes jurisdiction. Just as there are local misdemeanors, there are federal misdemeanors.

Like I said, we did this battle almost a year ago to date, when AZ was still considering their own immigration law. At that, I was arguing the same argument… that the penalities and fines need to be stronger. And in that same comment is the answer to your question: Show me where the first illegal entry is, as per the written law, a misdemeanor.

Per US federal code, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code – Section 1325: Improper entry by alien, the presence, attempt to enter, or misrepresentation of an illegal alien is punishable by no more than six months, and fined between $50 and $250 dollars for the first violation. Subsequent attempts etal can be no more than 2 years, or/and a fine of $100 to $500 dollars.

I will say one more time, they don’t define it as misdemeanor or felony status since that is determined totally by the individual and her/her specific record. Some will be misdemeanors. Others will end up felons.

Defining “crime”, and the differences between misdemeanors and felonies, the dividing line is typically the sentence maximum. This makes being an illegal alien entering, attempting to enter or misleading about their status the first time a misdemeanor.

As to your marijuana reference, in many state laws, quantity of possession determines if it is a misdemeanor or felony. That determination (amount of possession determines severity of crime) is what determins the sentence. The sentence will increase, as in immigration law, with the frequency of violation.

uh yeah… I said that. So we are arguing about what, exactly?

retire05, here’s a compiled/updated list of federal misdemeanors (certainly not all of them) as created by attorneys. I have highlighted the pertinent ones from Sect 8, USC for immigration law, as it relates to their misdemeanor status:

8 U.S.C. § 1306(a): (Aliens) – Willful failure to register. Penalty is up to $1,000.00 fine and/or up to 6 months imprisonment. 8 U.S.C. § 1306(b): (Aliens) – Failure to notify change of address. Penalty is up to $200.00 fine and/or up to 30 days imprisonment. In addition, a conviction under this section can be cause for removal under Title 8, Chapter 4. 8 U.S.C. § 1306(c): (Aliens) – Fraudulent statements. Penalty is up to $1,000.00 fine and/or up to six months imprisonment.

8 U.S.C. § 1321: (Aliens) – Prevention of unauthorized landing of aliens; failure to report; penalties. Penalty is up to $3,000.00 fine for each violation, imposed by the Attorney General.

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(B)(2)(A): Unlawful bringing of aliens into U.S. Penalty is $3,000.00 fine for each alien, paid to the Commissioner.

8 U.S.C. § 1325: Entry of Alien at improper time or place; misrepresentation and concealment of facts (first offense). Penalty is up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine imposed pursuant to Title 18.

Would you like to borrow “my sword”, my friend?

Mata, your link clearly says “it’s old” and to check for accuracy. It also states that the list was comprised by a public defender, Oklahoma. Now, perhaps a criminal/immigration attorney would chose to argue that the law is simply a misdemeanor, but there is no written requirement that a judge treat the offense as such. Lawyers do not get to interpret the law, judges do. So your claim that “individuals” determine the law is also wrong.

If a judge determines that the infraction is a felony, it will be treated as such since there is no clear defination in Title 18, Section 1325 as to any guideline to be used. i.e. the law is vague and leaves much discression to the judge, not to the lawyer.

What you are trying to do is argue that the law is clear, when it is not, and that repetition determines the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor. The judge, not the lawyer, has the latitude to make that decision since the law, itself, is not specific. You are trying to argue it is by providing the determination of criminal lawyers. Not that those lawyers would have a vested interest in minimizing the law, or anything like that.

Sorry about the sword. You seem to have it shoved up your anal cavity so I would not be interested in any part of it.

oieeey, retire05. I smell desperation.

This is a 2008 updated version. The caveat, “It’s old, so check the Federal Code before relying on the information.” refers to if there were changes in the specific USC’s they reference.

So are you telling us there have been changes in Title 8’s sections 1200-1300 in the past three years INRE immigation? Or just hoping so to hang on to a shred of argument’s credibility? (Hint: I keep a link to the USC on my computer, and there have been no changes. But feel free to hope away)

If a judge determines that the infraction is a felony, it will be treated as such since there is no clear defination in Title 18, Section 1325 as to any guideline to be used. i.e. the law is vague and leaves much discression to the judge, not to the lawyer.

Yes.. which is why I say – conversely – the ensuing instances of immigration violations may, or may not rise to felonious nature. If the judge decides to downgrade a first attempt to something else, the second attempt may not kick it into the max sentence/felon status. Judges always have ultimate control in their court rooms. They are the highest order of “referee”. No where did I ever say that “individuals” interpret the law. WTF?

What you are trying to do is argue that the law is clear, when it is not, and that repetition determines the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor.

Nope… what I’m trying to say to you… over and over (and I assure you, this is my last attempt at reason)…. is that the first time entry is a misdemeanor, and spending tons of bucks of taxpayers cash on prosecuting misdemeanors instead of chasing them back into their country is a waste of cash we don’t have. The second repeated argument is that we need to make the first time penalties, and ensuing attempts, much stronger. Maybe then the stepped up prosecutions would mean more, and prove more effective a deterrent.

As far as your last paragraph, it’s regretful your attitude towards what is a simple legal argument, and on a point where we actually agree, becomes so personal for you. So my suggestion is you blow all your hot air out your azz, and go find someone else to take your bad mood out on. I’m not interested, nor patient enough to play games with idiocy.

Mata, the only proof that you offer that a first offense is a misdemeanor, and not a felony, is the opinions of criminal lawyers, not anything that is written in the law itself. Now, you may choose to believe the opinions of criminal/immigration lawyers, but the law is not clear (you admit that) and the severity of the violation is strictly left up to the perview of the judge. If a judge orders that the violation, upon the determination of guilt, should be recorded as a felony, even if the first offense, it will be recorded as a felony. The hell with what a bunch of ambulance chasers say.

I do not think it a waste of time hauling first offenders into a court room, having fingerprinted them, and having the arrest on record. How else are we to know if they are repeat offenders, ummmm? By your standards, they could continue to violate the sovereign laws of the U.S. time after time, and never be put on record for doing so.

Sorry about the snip over the sword. I had a hard time suffering stupidity and strawman arguments. You see, I find you people who don’t live with illegal immigration, and its devestating affects, on a daily basis (what is the illegal population in your state of Oregon?) really don’t know, or care, about that devestation.

And don’t credit yourself with the ability to put me in a bad mood. I simply chuckle at the fact that you cannot prove your claim using the wording of the law itself, and have to resort to a criminal lawyer website.

retire05, I spent 17 years in a huge haven for illegal immigration, California. I spent the first 18 years of my life in Florida, with Cubano immigration issues. So that comment about “you people” who don’t live it high concentrations of illegal immigation is highly misplaced.

Can’t seem to make this clear to you… misdemeanor is a label used to indicate something less serious than a felony. However repeat offenses can make one person’s “misdemeanor” another person’s “felony”. This is not used in the legal language of the law in most instances, and is determined in the courts of law. I’ll tell you what…. what don’t you cite us the case of a first offender immigrant who was charged with a felony, and with no other crimes on his/her record. I’ll wait… take your time.

Nor did I say the law was “not clear”. What I said was each individual case has unique circumstances all it’s own, which changes the natures of the sentencing and fines.

I do not think it a waste of time hauling first offenders into a court room, having fingerprinted them, and having the arrest on record. How else are we to know if they are repeat offenders, ummmm? By your standards, they could continue to violate the sovereign laws of the U.S. time after time, and never be put on record for doing so.

While I understand your concept, this has a lot of factors associated…. do they try to re’enter? Do they succeed, unnoticed? We are talking about a huge mass of people here, retire05. In 2010, ICE agents estimated $2.6 bil annually to detail and remove illegals. Just a few months ago, Judicial Watch was noting the clog an expense in federal courts for immigrant related cases. And since Operation Streamline came into being around 2005, the criminal prosecution of detained immigrants has been the favored approach, replacing the previous catch and release “fingerprinting, and let ’em go” prior method, and what was handled thru administrative courts.

First piloted in December 2005 near Del Rio, Tex., Operation Streamline requires that virtually everyone caught illegally crossing segments of the border be charged with at least a misdemeanor immigration count and jailed until they are brought to court and, if convicted, eventually deported. A conviction jeopardizes any future legal entry to the United States.

So I’m not sure if you’re just not up on the way immigration is handled, the general definitions used in the legal world to differentiate misdemeanors from felonies, or what ever else your problem is in not getting my point…. but the fact is, if they are simply apprehended, and not charged with criminal charges, they are in the catch and release problem. If they are charged, it’s a misdemeanor for the first offense unless their records show something else.

That’s a bunch of cash, and with first time offenses being such a lightweight charge, doesn’t do much to deter them from trying… even if superior to the catch and release administrative method. Which is why I am for not only toughening the first time offense, but also have bi-state special ops raids against the criminal element that has freer access. And it’s also the expense that I believe is behind the suggestion we simply turn them back at the border, and prevent entry to begin with. So I believe it’s costs that are driving the policy.

I don’t “credit” myself for you being in a bad mood… and also you’re not a heavy commenter here (except on the gay threads…)…. I remember you well enough that such approach is not your usual style. So I apologize in return for my response to your not-your-usual testiness. Other than that, I’d say we’re just going to have to disagree here. The reading that I’ve done with various immigration lawyers bears out what I’ve presented as the norm.

BTW, retire04, here’s some additional reading on Operation Streamline for you, as put out by a very disgruntled ACLU on the program in general.

Operation Streamline is a Bush Administration program implemented in 2005 ordering federal criminal charges for every person who crosses the border illegally. In other words, it is a “zero tolerance” border enforcement program that targets even first time undocumented border-crossers. Instead of routing non-violent individuals caught crossing the border into civil deportation proceedings, Operation Streamline forces undocumented migrants through the federal criminal justice system and into U.S. prisons. Those who are caught making a first entry are prosecuted for misdemeanors punishable by up to 6 months in prison, and those who reenter after deportation may be prosecuted for felonies punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Under this fast-track program, a federal criminal case with prison and deportation consequences is resolved in 2 days or less.

As to those exceptions (i.e. 2nd entry), as I said, it depends on if they downgraded the first offense. For example, as the DHS site notes, for humanitarian reasons.

Oh, and Mata, that attempt at reason, perhaps you should not resort to criminal lawyers to make it for you. Meanwhile, I await your quoting the law itself that says the first offense will be treated soley as a misdemeanor.

@retire05, #16:

Perhaps you would like to explain to the rest of us, exactly what David Aguilar, and Janet Napolitano, thinks is the main job of our Border Patrol agents?

Border Patrol was formerly under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and was mainly concerned with matters directly related to immigration–specifically, guarding the U.S. borders and enforcing U.S. immigration law. Preventing illegal border crossings and catching illegal entrants was their primary mission.

Following 9/11, Border Patrol was broken off from INS and and became a subdivision of the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Border Patrol’s primary mission focus was shifted from immigration law enforcement to preventing terrorists and weapons of mass destruction from entering the United States.

They’re more concerned with the potential for terrorism these days than with illegal entrants intent on doing someone’s laundry, housekeeping, or yard work. With budgetary and manpower limitations, you’ve got to prioritize.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Fiscal Year 2009–2014 Strategic Plan

“everyone caught illegally crossing segments of the border be charged WITH AT LEAST A MISDEMEANOR”

Notice those two words, Mata? AT LEAST?

And in a government known for its waste (Pigford, anyone?) you are concerned about $2.6 billion/year to catch, incarcerate and deport illegals? I think it is one of the few things that is money well spent. My problem is that it is not backbilled to those nations that allowed their citizens to break our laws. Mexico, who benefits from illegal immigration into the U.S. especially.

You see, Mata, I have buried too many friends (three specifically) that have been victims of illegal immigration. We here in Texas know the true costs, and it is far more than the $2.6 billion you seem to think is a waste.

But the bottom line is this: although generally treated as a misdemeanor, the federal law is not specific and illegal entry CAN be treated as a felony, if determined as such by the judge, without the three-strikes-you’re-out rule you seem to want to apply.

Greg, Border Patrol was put under the Department of Homeland Security upon its creation. So what?

And let me ask you this: Do you consider Angel Resendez to have been a “terrorist” or do you only apply the term “terrorist” to those of Arab descent who belong to a specifically violent religion?

Greg, pioritize this:

http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#illegals

So much for your lame excuse of those only doing laundry, housework or yard work.

Why don’t you go back and read your comment #18 again, retire05… and see how far (and how slowly) you’ve come to accept a few facts?

#18: Mata, you’re basically wrong about illegal entry into the United States being a “misdemeanor”. It is much more than that.

…snip….

Mata, you can stick to your reasoning, but you are still wrong. Law breakers are not sentenced to six months in prison in a federal facility for a misdemeanor. What you are trying to do is read into the law what is not there; a defination of misdemeanor vs. felony.

And now we’ve finally gotten to this….

But the bottom line is this: although generally treated as a misdemeanor, the federal law is not specific and illegal entry CAN be treated as a felony, if determined as such by the judge, without the three-strikes-you’re-out rule you seem to want to apply.

You finally recognize it’s a misdemeanor, unless there are extra mitigating factors/offenses that mean law enforcement officials will not be charging the alien with a misdemeanor, but a felony. Just as I’ve said repeatedly to you.

And no… judges do not “bring charges”. Law enforcment brings charges. Judges don’t pull criminal records to find other related or unrelated violations, law enforcement does.

It’s been a long haul, retire05. My work here is done.

@retire05, #37:

Resendez was a mentally deranged serial killer. Terrorists are generally motivated by some comprehensible cause or purpose. Resendez had none.

mata, in order for your work to have been completed, you must have first done the job. You refuse to admit that there is NO wording in the law that requires a first offense to be treated as a misdemeanor. And because our courts are reluctant to do their jobs (you know, that whole ‘they’re just here for jobs’ crap) doesn’t mean that what the courts are doing is right.

The law IS NOT CLEAR THAT IT IS A SIMPLE MISDEMEANOR. So sorry, you don’t get to count coup on that.

But hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself, go ahead and think that you have scored some kind of hollow victory. It’s no skin off my nose.

Oh for god’s sake, retire05. I never said that “misdemeanor” appears as language in our Title 8 immigration law. That’s your strawman. It’s abundantly clear that it’s a misdemeanor by it’s enforcement, charges, and within the generally accepted sentencing and punishment.

Listen, I’m tired of your clinging to desperation here. You were off tangent from the beginning. Now you’re simply desperate to claim some credibility you never had, and after being so damned rude about it to boot.

Why don’t you read about reality, mass misdemeanors, and mass 2nd timers who remain with misdemeanors in this simple courtroom lesson of first hand experience. 2nd timers are most often charged with both the felon entry, AND the misdemeanor entry. The trick they do is to plead guilty to the lesser charge, and the more serious felon charge is dropped.

But you know it all, eh? ta ta, retire05.

Greg, I suggest you check Black’s Law for a defination of “terrorist”. And how do you know what Resendez had in mind? Did you ever speak to him? Or are you just a seer?

But I know, you think all illegals are just poor peons looking for some pesos to send back to their 10 kids in Mexico.

Mata, I am not “clinging” to desparation, or anything else. I have pointed out the wording of the law itself, and you want to discard that. Fine. I really don’t give a shit. You have insulted me one too many times. It seems that you want to resort to the “I’m right and you’re wrong and I don’t give a damn what the wording of the law is” defense. What you have presented is the reasoning of criminal lawyers, and now defense “tricks” used in the courts. I can only assume that meets with your approval. Perhaps when you personally suffer from the actions of an illegal alien, you will rethink your position.

No, I don’t know it all. But you sure seem to be of the opinion you do. Frankly, that just makes you a bitch (yeah, you have finally put me in a bad mood toward you), not informed except for what you have gleened from websites that are favorable to your argument. Nice to know that you think the actual wording of the law is a “strawman”.

And you do know about being rude. You seem to have written the rules on how to be rude. Perhaps adding a little maturity to your debate skills would serve you well. I did not, until now, question your motives, your intelligence or your rationale. But you did all those things to me. So, little Mata, this is over until you can conduct yourself like an adult.

No, you don’t know it all, and neither do I, retire05. But you know considerably less than you portray, and apparently don’t take the time to read and learn more from those law enforcement who bring the charges, and the lawyers and judges who deal with those charges via plea deals.

@retire05, #42:

But I know, you think all illegals are just poor peons looking for some pesos to send back to their 10 kids in Mexico.

That’s only true of the great majority of them.

Mata said:

“No, you don’t know it all, and neither do I, retire05. But you know considerably less than you portray….”

in other words, I know more than you do, retire05.

Arrogance seems to be your forte, Mata. Although you have displayed nothing but the opinions of criminal lawyers and left wing publications that talk about the “tricks”. If this is where you gleen your information (and not from those in the field like the Border Patrol itself, do you want a link for them?) no wonder you have to defend the fact that left leaning bleating hearts have bastardized our laws.

I never argued that the courts did NOT treat illegal entry as a misdemeanor. I pointed out that the law does not give specific language. You are the one that has presented nothing but strawmen, and insults, and now are stomping your feet saying “See, I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Again, you need to add a little maturity to your debate. So far you have acted like a spoiled brat demanding you get your way. Fine. Anything you have to say from this moment forward will be taken, not as intellectual prowess, but as so much bullshit. Your status on this website does not a God make you.

Ta-ta. Time for you to find someone else to try to impress with your insults.

@malize: Epic Fail on your part there. It IS a Democratic Republic. Most of the Liberals want you to believe it a Democracy, which a different beastie- more akin to what you’ve seen in most Marxist (I’ll call a spade a spade…”Socialist” is the same damn thing with a nicer connotation…) countries around the world.

As he considers running for a second term, surely obama is coming to a renewed realization of just how precious and fragile human life is.

Nohbody of Importance, hi, I say they the socialists DEMOCRATS are Trying to confuse the people who don’t know much of it, but to many addition to a name will do that,
and the real name to remember is THE REPUBLIC SOVEREIGN.
AM I RIGHT OR WRONG?